Posts

Posted on

honest conversation

photo-1423784346385-c1d4dac9893a

Are we capable of having an honest conversation regarding one of the most challenging issues of our time? Are we capable of examining the facts objectively? … evaluating the subjective, distinguishing between what is true and what is instead designed to control opinion?

Omit the rhetoric. Relinquish the bias. Let’s also acknowledge that none of us have coined the market on expertise in this area.

I wish to speak honestly and sincerely about the current threat of terrorism. As witnessed in the news flow and public polling, Americans are increasingly concerned about the danger radical Islamic terrorists pose. The incidents in Paris and San Bernardino have refreshed our fears that have become somewhat subdued the past fourteen years. According to multiple pollsters, the belief that the terrorists are winning the “War on Terror” is near its highest level ever in the past decade. We are concerned.

But… can we talk about it?

I ask because I’m not quite comfortable with some of the semantics in how this sobering issue is being approached.

On one hand, there are those who seem insensitively careless with their words… those who far too easily embrace the quote in response to North Vietnam in the 60’s, most often attributed to Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, proclaiming that if the enemy doesn’t comply, “We’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age!” Republican Presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, has repeatedly utilized such a phrase. Dropping the bomb on not only the enemy but also on the included, adjacent innocents seems hasty to this semi-humble current events observer. Such seems an attempt to incite emotion, control the public narrative, and appeal to specific voting blocs.

On the other hand, there are those who seem tiptoeing-ly careful with their words… those who attempt to assuage the public narrative and ensure no one makes any association between the current terrorist threat with any aspect of Islam. Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, for example, has repeatedly said that, “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” It is true that Islam is not our adversary, but it is untrue that Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Again to this semi-humble observer (emphasis on the “semi”), such seems an attempt to damper emotion, control the public narrative, and appeal to specific voting blocs.

My point is that both careless and careful speech are inauthentic; they are not helpful in honest conversation — which is necessary in discerning a solution. Yet here’s where our partisan bias distorts our observations; depending on our engrained bent, we call the inciting comments either “factual” or “fear mongering”; we also call the dampening comments either “strategic” or “stupid.”

Oh, how I crave honest conversation…

The current, most pressing terrorist threat arises from persons who identify themselves as adherents of Islamic ideology. While by no means are all Muslims radical, a significant percentage is.

Consider the observations of popular American author Sam Harris — note, atheist author Sam Harris: “We have 1.5/1.6 billion Muslims… Just imagine some concentric circles here. You have at the center, you have jihadists. These are people who wake up in the morning, wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying; they believe in paradise; they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them we have Islamists; these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity, but they want to work within the system. They’re not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments; they want to use democracy against itself… The next, largest circle is the fundamentalists… they hold views about human rights and about women and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling.”

Hundreds of thousands of persons are considered as those inner, most violent “jihadists.” The outer, equally troubling circles arguably contain millions more.

This, friends, is tough to talk about. It’s too easy to fall into the narrative-controlling traps that are either disrespectful or watered down. We must be respectful — as opposed to the inciting, bombing and Stone Age comments. We must also be honest — as opposed to the dampening, acting as if Islam-isn’t-part-of-the-problem comments.

I thus find myself soberly returning to question #1: are we capable of having an honest conversation regarding one of the most challenging issues of our time?

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

excellent communication

thEvery now and then my youngest son says something that blows me away; in fact, in a world where healthy communication and intelligence aren’t always linked together, I am often impressed by the wisdom in Josh’s words.

(Note: let us never allow the labeling of “special needs” to cause us to conclude that there exists an inability — or a lesser ability — to communicate well with others.)

Today’s post, no less, is not long. I simply wish to share with you my gifted teen’s profound, transparent thinking; he teaches me much, even in the normal routines of daily life. Sometimes we just have to ensure our eyes and ears are open… such as earlier this week…

On Tuesday, Josh had an eye doctor appointment. It’s a somewhat rare occurrence for him, as we had not been to this particular physician for three years. The surroundings were thus somewhat foreign.

We immediately walked into the waiting room, which while rather large, still only hosted less than a handful of other patients at the time. There was a toddler waiting, who sat quietly off in a corner playing with a few toys. There was also an elderly gentlemen in need of care. Before we both joined them, I went to the window to check in, while Josh ventured off to select two seats for us in the room.

After a few minutes and even more in-need-of-filling forms, I finished registering and turned to find Josh. I saw him nowhere. I scanned the room, wondering if he had for some reason wandered off.

And then what to my wondering eyes should merrily appear, but in the back of the room, there was a miniature plastic house — one of those Little Tikes playhouses — with doors, windows, shutters and shades — that stood no more than four feet tall. I narrowed my focus, and sure enough, through the plastic window slats, I saw Josh’s big, blue eyes peek out at me. His smile was radiant and contagious.

So I strolled across the room taking a seat near an adjacent, outside window, eager to greet Josh in his newfound, gleeful discovery. He sat on the floor — this 8th grader taking up most all the space inside the house. I quickly realized, however, that his glee was gone. He sat there, stationary… and silent.

So I waited, giving him time to think and reflect. Then all of a sudden, he offered a single, serious, but not unhappy phrase:

“I miss being little.”

How profound… how honest… what an excellent communicator..

I miss being little…

May my eyes, ears, and heart always be open to what this young man has to say. He teaches many of us daily.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

sharing a different story

ShuttlecockOne of my more fun (and shareable) college habits was to enroll in a Phys. Ed. class each semester, giving me at least one class where the load was light but I still received academic credit — also a class I would knowingly, thoroughly enjoy. Hence, if one would ever pull out that dusty old transcript, they would find among others, each of the following, highly-esteemed classes on my resume:

  • Racquetball
  • Basketball
  • Ballroom Dancing
  • Bowling; and… (wait for it…)
  • Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced Golf

It was great! Each was co-ed, adding to the fun — even though I was one of only two females in my male-dominated basketball class; in fact, it was obvious that our talented male classmates — several who starred on their high school teams — weren’t especially thrilled with me and my female cohort. Yet one day when I was playing the shooting guard spot, I was able to block a notably stronger competitor — one of the undisputed, most athletic men in class. My male teammate was then able to slide around him, finishing with an eye-catching, monstrous dunk. My teammate, who had not spoken to me all semester, then finally made eye contact; he offered his sole words to me that spring: “Nice pick.” It’s one of the best compliments I’ve ever received.

Arguably, however, my favorite P.E. class was none other than Badminton. For whatever reason, there was just something endearing about this sport that I previously, primarily only associated with backyards and barbecues. I learned so much there. And it was there I learned that this casual summer sport meant so much more in other parts of the world; there is an entire World Federation, highlighting athletes graced with phenomenal fitness, agility, strength, speed, and precision… so much more than a mere light-hearted focus on that feathered, little shuttlecock in the summer.

I was befriended that semester by a young man who grew up playing competitively in Thailand. He played on the equivalent of an American AAU team. Erwin and I were fast friends, and so we often played badminton outside of class. Without a doubt, he sharpened me and my skills. I improved immensely — and came to love the game.

In the final weeks of that semester, the teaching assistant set up a round-robin tournament, in which we would play each class member one-on-one. I did fairly well, finding myself in a much-anticipated match against the #2 men’s singles tennis player at a Big Ten university. Obviously, while badminton was not his number one sport, he was very good. I was just an athletic competitor, loving intramurals, who had picked up the light racquet for the first time that semester.

The match was interactive and intense from the start… back and forth… back and forth. We were playing the best of 3 games, playing to 15, having to win by 2, with a person only able to score while serving. The match was intense; my time with Erwin had obviously paid off. Much to the surprise of the teacher, me, everyone in the auxiliary gym that day, and, that #2 men’s tennis player, this became an especially tight match. It went on and on, play after play — each strategically placing that shuttlecock in precise areas of the rectangular court. He won game one; I won game two. Next came game three.

By this time most other match-ups quietly paused to watch what was seemingly surprisingly evolving. I saw Erwin smiling often, cheering his precious protege on. And sure enough, as I felt the sweat increase on my brow — and actually saw it on my opponent’s — in addition to his altered facial expressions, realizing that this scholarshipped athlete (in tennis, no less!) was about to be beaten by a un-scholarshipped girl — my confidence increased exponentially. The match was over in less than an hour. Erwin and I embraced at game’s end. It was an awesome day.

For years I have proudly shared that story including the most memorable outcome, how this semi-humble Intramuralist beat a collegiately ranked, men’s singles tennis player in badminton. It was one of my favorite highlights. But in all reality, odd as this may seem, while I remember how I felt — and I remember the looks on the faces of the people in the room — I honestly cannot remember if I won or lost. I don’t know.

I have often wondered if that tennis player and I were in the same room again today, how he would tell the story. We were in the same place, same time, sharing the same experience, but sensing different emotions. He might say it differently. He might even say he won.

Remembering such — and remembering that one time badminton prowess — helps me give great grace to people whose perspective is different than mine… even when experiencing the exact same thing.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

at risk society

photo-1445365813209-5ab6d8f397cb

As I sort through what’s most current in our conversation, I keep coming back to all the shouting going on. Truth is, I’m not all that fond of it. Someone, somewhere, says something seemingly foolish, and we are tempted to do primarily three things in response:

  1. Say something foolish back
  2. Lambaste an entire people group
  3. Attempt to squelch the speaker

I suppose, at times, we do all three.

With “the Donald” dominating the news flow, many have justified the disrespect right back… what an idiot… how stupid his supporters… he’s doing so much damage; someone please shut him up…

I get it. We want to stop the foolish speech. We don’t want to hear it anymore. We go so far to even question the embedded freedoms of the First Amendment. I thus sense an arrogance that disturbs me… in Trump… and in us.

It’s just that we are so good at thinking we are right. And when we think we’re right, we justify the screaming at others. We justify lambasting people groups. We justify not listening. And we subconsciously justify never being sharpened by different opinion. We have forgotten the good that can come from different opinion.

Let’s be clear: Trump’s idea of banning all Muslims conflicts with the religious freedoms also constitutionally embedded in this country. Trump’s perceived, specific, overly non-compassionate-toward-Muslims approach to dealing with the terrorists isn’t striking because it’s a popular idea; rather, it’s striking because it’s a direct contrast to Pres. Obama’s perceived, non-specific, overly compassionate-toward-Muslims approach. Trump tells us what new we need to do. Obama tells us what he’s already doing. (Ugh. Sigh. Fill in your exasperated uttering here.) My point is that neither approach seems effective. And yet, we jump on bandwagons, saying something foolish back, lambasting entire people groups, and eagerly wishing somebody would please shut up.

I tend to agree with a recent Washington Post editorial shared by a wise friend…

“…I am just as concerned about the destructive tone of the Trump campaign as I am about its demagogic content. How can you hear what someone else is saying, no matter how important, when you’re shouting? How can you bring people into a constructive search for solutions to our national problems when you do nothing but belittle them, and even suggest they are stupid, weak or corrupt?

A truly free society, one that gives its citizens the responsibility of participation, can function only to the extent there is civil discourse. We can engage in a mutual search for solutions only to the extent that we agree a problem exists. That can never happen unless we talk to each other, listen to each other and respect the fact that honorable people can reach different conclusions. When that sense of comity is missing, we are at risk.”

Friends, we are at risk. Most of us justify both the shouting and not listening to one another because we say “the other guy did it first.” It’s like which person chose not to listen first: then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, when he said his “single most important” goal was to stop Obama — or Obama, who pursued healthcare without working with a single Republican legislator? Tell me, truthfully: who’s the better listener and respecter of different opinion?

So I say it again: we are at risk. We are at risk because our leadership does not practice nor model civil, respectful discourse and solution. Do I blame Trump? No. While I’m no fan, I simply see him as the current most magnified manifestation of our lack of willingness to pursue a constructive, respectful search for solution.

I continue to wish for something better and more.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

inconsistent hate speech

525px-Speech_balloon.svg

The story seemingly gaining greatest steam in the wake of ongoing atrocity is the perceived hate-filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I get it. He is a bold, straight-talker who says what he means and means what he says — sadly, unlike so many engaged in political narrative; the challenge is that some of what he says is ugly and disrespectful.

On one hand, so much of what Trump has said is not good nor true nor right; on the other hand (albeit a distinctly smaller hand at that), there is something refreshing about unfiltered straight talk.

Let us first be clear in regard to exactly the message that Trump has articulated that has currently dominated the news flow (yes, even more than Time’s interesting selection of Angela Merkel). After the San Bernardino killers’ identified connection to militant Islamic ideology, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S., a proposal the Wall Street Journal labeled as one “that taps into voter anxiety about the recent spate of terrorist attacks yet likely runs afoul of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

While his goal seems to be to eliminate the terrorist threat, few leaders of any partisan persuasion have embraced or endorsed Trump’s words. A resounding most have denounced his averred approach.

Trump proclaimed, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

I do appreciate recognition of the threat that adherence to militant Islamic ideology poses. The Intramuralist, for one, has been concerned about the unwillingness of some to specifically acknowledge the origin of the current terror, as it’s hard to root out the problem if one is unwilling to acknowledge what the problem actually is. Some (uh, not Trump) water the root down; some compare it to irrelevant organized religions; some make it about “extremism.” If we are going to solve the problem, then we must wrestle with the motive for this particular manifestation of extremism. Hence, while I will not affirm the use or encouragement of any hate speech, I will also not affirm the watering down of terror.

So about this hate speech — or shall we say — hateful, divisive speech…

Some words seem definitely hateful; some are more subjective; all is divisive. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seemingly addressed it well…

“Throughout our history you have had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues. This country faces some enormous problems… And somebody like a Trump is trying to divide us up… That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”

Ah, “divide us up.” Amen, Bernie… if only that kind of “crap” didn’t work; unfortunately, it’s already in play. Yes, too many, from too many supposed sides, already attempt to divide us up…

Trump advocated banning Muslims from America (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Hillary Clinton named Republicans as her number one “enemy” (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Then there are the examples of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut”… Obama senior advisor, John Podesta, calling the GOP “a cult worthy of Jonestown”…  and Organizing for America, which actually compared Republicans to “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”…
Such an incomplete account still omits the plethora of bipartisan comparisons to Adolf Hitler…  [Sigh…]

My point is that too many are too ok with division when it serves their purpose. Trump went too far; he forgets our commitment to being the land of the free and home of the brave. He, also, sadly joins the ranks of those who justify ostracizing an entire people group — when the entirety is undeserving but the rhetoric is self-serving. Such is intentional, divisive speech.

Divisive speech is common, deliberate, and disappointing. We are thus often inconsistent in our offense… and in our cheers.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

person of the year

IMG_5386Time Magazine will announce tomorrow their 2015 “Person of the Year.” Originating in 1927 with the selection of Charles Lindbergh (in an attempt to remedy the previous editorial embarrassment of not featuring the aviator on the front cover after his trans-Atlantic flight), each year the periodical selects a person, group, idea or thing that they believe has most influenced the news during the calendar year. Positive or negative impact is irrelevant; the selection simply signifies who/what has most influenced the news flow.

As mentioned by the Intramuralist in recent years, previous so-called “winners” include Walter Chrysler, Mahatma Gandhi, and Adolf Hitler… every sitting U.S. President except Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford… also, inanimate objects such as “The Inheritor” in ’66, “The Computer” in ’82, and “The Good Samaritans” in 2005.

So I’m pondering who may be announced tomorrow; many come to mind…

From foreign figures such as Francois Hollande, Vladimir Putin, and Bashar al-Assad… to surging new leaders here and abroad in Pope Francis and new House Speaker Paul Ryan… not to diminish entertaining individuals such as Abby Wambach, Tom Brady, and (“hello”) Adele…

Yet while each of the above significantly influenced the news flow in 2015, there are two selections I think stand out:

(1) The Candidate; and…
(2) The Terrorist

First, “The Candidate”… Some will clamor for “The Candidate” to be a specific someone. I’m not there yet. Allow me to share a small Intramuralist supposition…

Whenever there’s a personnel change for whatever the reason — good, bad, voluntary or involuntary — from a president to a pastor to any working professional — there is a tendency to over-emphasize what was perceived to be most lacking in the previous position holder when searching for someone new. For example, when Pres. George W. Bush was perceived by many to be too colloquial and casual in speech, candidate Obama’s eloquent oratorical skills became especially attractive.

With a personnel change occurring in the White House next year, we are again subtly assessing what characteristic seems most absent; it’s like taking advantage of the opportunity in front of us — albeit the over-emphasis can be blinding elsewhere. I see such in the current lure of two men in particular: the self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose authenticity has attracted multiple fans — and — in business mogul Donald Trump, whose straight talk entices many… even if that straight talk isn’t always true. The challenge is that when we over-emphasize what was previously most lacking, we miss important, necessary traits for the next office holder to possess. Hence, “The Candidate” could be our “Person of the Year.”

Second, “The Terrorist”… I really wish he/she/it wasn’t so deserving. There is no doubt they have dominated our headlines way too many times.

Persons connected with militant Islamic ideology have been wreaking havoc on innocent others since day one, month one, all of 2015. There was the massacre on northern Nigerian villages by Boko Haram, killing an estimated 2000 in January… the attack on Charlie Hebdo shortly thereafter… car bombs by al-Qaeda… mass shootings by Al-Shabaab in April… shootings, stabbings, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and decapitations by ISIS, ISIL, the Taliban, and more.

Let me be semi-subtle in my bottom line: “The Terrorist” has been too involved in the news flow.

With multiple attacks, the American public seems especially, increasingly irritated and angry that we have not made obvious, significant progress in halting these horrific attacks; the violence keeps happening. We struggle with what to call it. We struggle with what to do. Our leaders struggle. Should we be specific? Should we not? Should we change our strategy? Should we not?

Will “The Terrorist” continue to dominate? What would “The Candidate” say?

Perhaps only Time will tell.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the only person left in the room

photo-1444047427283-88a67f631b3eAllow me a moment of total transparency: one night last week I got really mad at my spouse. I was really mad.

Earlier in the evening we were working through a challenging conflict with one of our sons. The son was not complying with our expectations. The situation was also not unfolding nor progressing in a positive way. It was frustrating, hard, and no fun for any of us.

As the conflict continued in absence of an immediate, foreseeable solution, my son left the room and my spouse and I pressed on with the dialogue. Yet with my son no longer present, I turned my frustration toward the only person left in the room: my loyal, loving spouse.

Oh, right. He wasn’t responsible. But in the moment, that didn’t matter to me. He hadn’t fixed the problem, even if my frustration wasn’t his fault. Still, it did not matter; I was really mad. I wanted the conflict to go away. So I justified my anger — no matter at whom it was directed.

Last week’s San Bernardino shooting was another gut-wrenching heartbreak. Once again, persons connected with militant Islamic ideology justified the intentional killing of innocent others. Across the country, we then reacted in different ways with different words, thoughts, passions, and stabs at solution. One aspect was obvious: the clear majority of us want the violence to stop. We want it to stop.

Chew on that for a moment… Whether an individual reaction manifested itself in a loquacious Facebook rant, a scathing newspaper editorial, or a call for increased legislation or military action, the bottom line is the same: we want the violence to stop. The repeated proclamation that “enough is enough” is a call for the innocent, evil killing to come to an end.

It is important, friends, to remember that we are not each other’s enemy. We are not the ones doing the killing. As much as we may disagree as to what to call the terror or what needs to be done to either diminish or eliminate the threat, it is truer still that we are not the enemy. We are not responsible for this evil exhibition.

And yet, we sometimes forget that. We forget that we are not responsible.

That glaring forgetfulness was obvious in last week’s New York Daily News. (Granted, it’s a paper struggling with declining readership, but…) In their sensationalized front page, they headlined the news with: “God Isn’t Fixing This.” Their subtitle read: “As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.” They then featured multiple presidential candidates encouraging us to pray for the victims in California.

Then, too, came the flurry of copycat comments and proclamations — such as Gene Weingarten’s tweet from the Washington Post: “Dear ‘thoughts and prayers’ people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it”… or even the senator from Connecticut’s tweet: “Your ‘thoughts’ should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your ‘prayers’ should be for forgiveness if you do nothing — again”… or Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos: “How many dead people did those thoughts and prayers bring back to life?”… and still more who suggested we stop saying that “our thoughts and prayers are with you,” because as the rhetorical chorus imposed, our prayers aren’t working.

I have many sobering thoughts. Let me pose a simple, small few…

First, we are not divine beings; none of us are omniscient enough to know if or how our prayers are working. All we can conclude is that the violence has not stopped; no man can accurately discern the effect of the prayers.

Second, we must continue to remember that the clear majority of us — whether we lash out or stay silent — are disturbed at the violence. There is no need to judge the person who responds differently. We want the same thing; we want the violence to end.

And finally, when in our disgust, we turn our angst toward the sincere prayer of another — instead of focusing on the actual enemy — we resemble the conflict with my son and my spouse. We are yelling at “the only person left in the room.”

Remember that “the only person left in the room” is not the one responsible.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

“those”

photo-1439761414027-4f4ebeeda3a3Another week. Another shooting.

And so I sit at my laptop, soberly scrapping the thoughts originally penned for today’s post, knowing another topic takes greater priority, as our heads and hearts are focused elsewhere.

But my heart hurts when focusing there. Horrific, senseless tragedies hurt.

Oh, wait… I hear “those” already. “Those” are the “I’m-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” crowd… I get it. I don’t want to take it any more either.

In all sincerity, it’s challenging to respond to part of this crowd — not because they aren’t well-intentioned — I believe they are; like the rest of us, they want the violence to stop. Their “loudness” is in obvious response to how much these senseless tragedies hurt. But when a person is “mad-as-hell” about gun violence yet calm and cool regarding mass beheadings and Islamic terrorism, I find the messaging inconsistent and thus hard to adhere or respectfully respond to.

There are another set of “those”… “those” who get immediately, completely all riled up over San Bernardino, but are still preaching patience in regard to any judgment of the shooter at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Both were inspired by some kind of evil. We can’t justify rushing to judgment in one but reserving it in the other; that’s inconsistent. Again, it’s hard to listen well to inconsistent proclamations.

Here’s the thing…

The most talked about tragedies across the country today are San Bernardino, Planned Parenthood, and Paris — each an instance in which gunmen inspired by evil — or something obviously wrong within them — intentionally killed innocent others. What they each did is awful. The scary part is that these three events sadly only cover the most recent three weeks. The killing will happen again. The killing may be closer to you and me.

And yet… most of us are inconsistent in one or more of the following:

  • Calling people out
  • Rushing to judgment
  • Identifying ideology
  • Offering mercy and grace
  • Advocating a new approach
  • Being specific about who’s at fault
  • Blaming other people

When we are inconsistent, it’s hard to listen well to one another.

My heart hurts. Did I say that already?

God be with the families involved in yesterday’s shooting in San Bernardino. Initial reports are that at least 14 have been killed. Multiple gunmen walked into a state-established medical facility, contracted out to non-profit organizations to serve people with disabilities.

My heart hurts even more.

So could we please stop this “mad-as-hell” thing?

Sorry, but “those” are not helping; “those” are not moving us toward solution… especially, with all due respect, when “those” people are inconsistent.

May God be with us all.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the exact same spot

photo-1443178371320-d524137f09bfEvery now and then I come across one of those profound “a-ha moments” that causes me to pause, knowing I can’t simply shake it away nor quickly become immersed in something else, so as to miss the striking relevance to current day. Before sharing publicly, let’s first acknowledge the true horror happening in the world; let’s specifically acknowledge the radical, Islamic terror that is piercing any global potential for peace…

ISIS is known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Daesh, or simply Islamic State (IS). They began as an al Qaeda splinter group 11 years ago in Iraq, rebranding themselves 2 years thereafter.

Their stated goal is to create a “caliphate” across Iraq, Syria and beyond; this means a unified federal Islamic government, ruled by an elected head of state or “caliph.” They have been killing countless — murdering the innocent via public executions, crucifixions and other awful, evil acts of violence, as witnessed most recently on the streets of Paris, France.

They have moved into Libya; they are less than 400 miles away from the Italian island of Sicily. Their known stronghold is primarily, currently located across Syria and Iraq — an area in which they control tens of thousands of square miles.

Key to today’s “a-ha” is that Iraq’s second largest city — Mosul — is now also under terrorist control. While the city fell the summer before last, the so-called “fall of Mosul” was considered a significant development in the escalation of the conflict with the terrorists. CBS called it a “heavy defeat”… the Wall Street Journal, a “strategic disaster”… and as one former senior Pentagon official said, “The fall of Mosul was something that we had not anticipated. And the suddenness with which that fall occurred was something that — that was a shock. They seized everything from small arms to light-armored vehicles to anti-aircraft weapons. When terrorists of this kind get their hands on weapons, it was a huge concern to us. I don’t think we truly understood the depth of the problem until the fall of Mosul.”

The fall of Mosul was significant.

Hence, on to my “a-ha”…

Centuries ago there existed a powerful, corrupt city. For 50 years, it was the largest city in the world, as the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. It was destroyed in 612 BC, after an Assyrian civil war. This major Mesopotamian city was known as Nineveh.

Many of us have arguably, unknowingly repeated a story surrounding Nineveh for years. We know it better as the story/scripture/you-name-it about Jonah in the belly of that seemingly very hungry whale. Some believe it; some don’t; that’s not the point. I am struck instead by what happened prior to sea animal’s swallowing.

Remember that the reason Jonah ended up in the ocean was that he was attempting to avoid his divine calling. He was on a ship out to sea that encountered a violent storm; the man was running from God, and God seemingly used multiple angles (and animals — or at least one very big one) to get Jonah’s attention.

What was God imploring Jonah to do?

Go to Nineveh.

God told Jonah to go to Nineveh because Nineveh’s wickedness — or “evil” — had come to God’s attention; he could bear it no more.

Friends, the ruins of Nineveh lie on the eastern bank of the Tigris River. What’s directly across the river?

Mosul.

Mosul now actually includes metropolitan areas on both sides of the Tigris, thereby encompassing the former ancient, evil city.

In Jonah’s account, after the whale incident, Jonah eventually went to the city and proclaimed the need for the people to humble themselves, repent, and turn from their wicked ways.

Fascinating how the need so direly exists once more… in the exact same spot in the world.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

outrageous

IMG_5368While most were returning to some semblance of routine Friday morning, the typical Colorado calm was pierced by a shooter at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. Two civilians and one police officer died; the gunman is now in custody as the investigation ensues.

This, friends, is wrong.

What I find also fascinating, is the varied, selective, contrasting outrage…

  • There are persons formerly loud about violence who are now silent because the incident took place at a site in which they vehemently disagree with what takes place there.
  • There are persons formerly quiet about Christians killed in Europe and the Middle East who are now loud because it’s at Planned Parenthood.
  • There are persons who want this incident specifically labeled but refuse to be specific in uttering the phrase, “radical Islamic terrorism.”
  • There are persons who want to be sympathetic to other protestors, even when they go too far, but demand zero empathy for a Planned Parenthood protestor.
  • And there are persons who have zero empathy for other protestors, but preach hesitancy before rushing to any judgment in Colorado Springs.

Ah, yes… we are a fickle people. Arguably better put, we are full of contrasts and contradictions… depending on how we feel, how we’re bent, and what bias we have within us… each of us, me included.

In a statement released on Saturday, Pres. Obama said that “enough is enough.”

I agree. However, that’s where our contrasts and contradictions come into play.

What’s “enough” is not just shootings at Planned Parenthood. What’s “enough” is not just a shooting at Fort Hood. What’s “enough” is not just another massacre like Paris. What’s “enough” is not just another person — via the workplace or college campus or Middle East — who feels capable of taking justice into their own hands. What’s “enough” is not another person who is gravely misguided by motive, mental health, ideology, or something.

What is “enough” is the selective acceptance of evil on this planet. Evil is evil is evil. Our problem is that we cannot seem to agree on what evil actually is. And we fight it passionately in some places — based on those bents and bias — but in other places, we either ignore it, downplay it, or greet it with political correctness.

What is evil? How do we define it?

For some, evil is the killing of people at Planned Parenthood; for others, it is the killing of infants inside Planned Parenthood. For still others, it is both. For perhaps still more, it is neither.

The more I wrestle, the more I’m convinced that we define evil differently — or at the very least — we set up some hierarchy of “evils” — as opposed to recognizing that evil is evil is evil.

It’s as if we believe we or the elect or some other human beings are somehow capable of decreeing what exactly is moral and immoral — as if we can proclaim the “profoundly immoral and malevolent.” But we disagree; we don’t know where to start. We can’t agree on what evil is.

Hence, my semi-humble stab — as best as I can discern — is that evil is the absence of good and absence of God. But that’s hard, as we seem to have increasingly more trouble recognizing who God is, what he asks of us, and how we are to treat other people — especially when we disagree.

Respectfully…
AR